Presidential address last night

[NotNow]

I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

All US Presidents were born in the current US.  Natural born citizenship is a requirement, always has been.  See the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.

[FayeforCure]

I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

All US Presidents were born in the current US.  Natural born citizenship is a requirement, always has been.  See the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1.

Many third world nations have freedom from government as their governments are hugely in-effective.

Government is not our enemy, it should be used for the common good.........things we cannot do on our own.

Preamble

Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in 1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of the United States of America.

Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who had served as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder:

1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia.

The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.

Of the several search engines we tried only Bing gave the correct answer by stating some of the US presidents were born under the British crown controlled colonies in North America and listed the US presidents in order with their birth days. Google search referred us to Wickipedia, which wrongly identified the 8th .US president Van Buren as the First US born president. President Van Buren was born in December 5th. 1782 in the British colony of New York. The treaty of Paris establishing USA as a New Country was not signed until nine months later in September 3, 1783

http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html

[NotNow]

You said:

"Many of our earliest Presidents were European born."

The Constitution says:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

No US President was born in Europe.  Obviously, prior to the formation of the US, citizens of the American colonies were British subjects. 

I'll just leave it at that.

And of course you are mistaken when you conflate "limited government" with "ineffective government".  You do understand the American principles of limited government, right?

[FayeforCure]

You said:

I also beg to differ.  Many of the rights that you enjoy in the US are not enjoyed in many Western European countries or even Canada and Mexico.  And to be fair, Europe has protected its citizens in some ways that the US has not (see credit info).

The US was established when a corrupt and unresponsive government failed to allow Americans any say in their lives and businesses.  The Americans simply cast off that government and created the Republic that we enjoy.  Many have immigrated to this country for the same reason that people still line up to get here, freedom...liberty....the right to be free of government.

To be free of government means having pretty much NO government just like third world nations.

Complex civilized nations by their very nature require an effective government for oversight, accountability and protection of its citizens from enemies, domestic and foreign.

Currently the US is under siege from a corporate coup and the uttra-wealthy that are only looking after themselves at the expense of our citizenry.

Republicans and many Democrats do their bidding.

Op-Ed Columnist

Republicans, Zealots and Our Security

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 23, 2011

IF China or Iran threatened our national credit rating and tried to drive up our interest rates, or if they sought to damage our education system, we would erupt in outrage.


Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof


On the Ground



Well, wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists.

We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack. But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength â€" and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.

House Republicans start from a legitimate concern about rising long-term debt. Politicians are usually focused only on short-term issues, so it would be commendable to see the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party seriously focused on containing long-term debt. But on this issue, many House Republicans aren’t serious, they’re just obsessive in a destructive way.

The upshot is that in their effort to protect the American economy from debt, some of them are willing to drag it over the cliff of default.

It is not exactly true that this would be our first default. We defaulted in 1790. By some definitions, we defaulted on certain gold obligations in 1933. And in 1979, the United States had trouble managing payouts to some individual investors on time (partly because of a failure of word processing equipment) and thus was in technical default.

Yet even that brief lapse in 1979 raised interest payments in the United States. Terry L. Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University and co-author of a scholarly paper about the episode, says the 1979 default increased American government borrowing costs by 0.6 of a percentage point indefinitely.

Any deliberate and sustained interruption this year could have a greater impact. We would see higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, business loans and credit cards.

American government borrowing would also become more expensive. In February, the Congressional Budget Office noted that a 1 percentage point rise in interest rates could add more than $1 trillion to borrowing costs over a decade.

In other words, Republican zeal to lower debts could result in increased interest expenses and higher debts. Their mania to save taxpayers could cost taxpayers. That suggests not governance so much as fanaticism.

More broadly, a default would leave America a global laughingstock. Our “soft power,” our promotion of democracy around the world, and our influence would all take a hit. The spectacle of paralysis in the world’s largest economy is already bewildering to many countries. If there is awe for our military prowess and delight in our movies and music, there is scorn for our political/economic management.

While one danger to national security comes from the risk of default, another comes from overzealous budget cuts â€" especially in education, at the local, state and national levels. When we cut to the education bone, we’re not preserving our future but undermining it.

It should be a national disgrace that the United States government has eliminated spending for major literacy programs in the last few months, with scarcely a murmur of dissent.

Consider Reading Is Fundamental, a 45-year-old nonprofit program that has cost the federal government only $25 million annually. It’s a public-private partnership with 400,000 volunteers, and it puts books in the hands of low-income children. The program helped four million American children improve their reading skills last year. Now it has lost all federal support.

“They have made a real difference for millions of kids,” Kyle Zimmer, founder of First Book, another literacy program that I’ve admired, said of Reading Is Fundamental. “It is a tremendous loss that their federal support has been cut. We are going to pay for these cuts in education for generations.”

Education programs like these aren’t quick fixes, and the relation between spending and outcomes is uncertain and complex. Nurturing reading skills is a slog rather than a sprint â€" but without universal literacy we have no hope of spreading opportunity, fighting crime or chipping away at poverty.

“The attack on literacy programs reflects a broader assault on education programs,” said Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut. She notes that Republicans want to cut everything from early childhood programs to Pell grants for college students. Republican proposals have singled out some 43 education programs for elimination, but it’s not seen as equally essential to end tax loopholes on hedge fund managers.

So let’s remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let’s also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24kristof.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof

[buckethead]

Perhaps some of us could read up on the United States Constitution?

The US Constitution was written before the threat of take-over of governments by large corporations existed.

Lets protect the PEOPLE from this travesty.

Soooo you believe that the Federal government is well under the influence of evil corporations, and yet you want to give the Federal government more power and money? 

Limit the Federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers and you will solve the problem that you seem to see.

After doing a bit of my own (ongoing, and perhaps disorganized) research, I have come to the conlusion that the closest Corporate entity to our government is Goldman Sachs. They virtually run the fed. Other Too Big To fail behemoths are in the mix as well.

It aint big oil running the show. (though they do their part to get their share of the booty)

[Dog Walker]

You have an interesting story and point of view DW.  What would be your "top 3" actions to add jobs to our economy?

1. We are in a cash crunch right now.  Consumers can't spend and companies won't spend until they see that consumers are.  Companies are being smart and hoarding their cash.  It is a perfect time for a true Keysian stimulus program;  government spending that gets the most money into the pockets of middle class and unemployed people as quickly as possible.  FDR actually had it right early in his administration.  Put people to work in infrastructure projects.  Revive the WPA and the CCC.  Pay the best and brightest of our young people a stipend to go to college.

This would increase the deficit in the short term, but prime the spending pump of our economy and allow us to pay it back later.  We are stagnating now.

2. Universal, single payer health care i.e. Medicare for everyone.  US companies are at a huge disadvantage trying to compete when they have to make healthcare part of their reimbursement package.  Having only employer assisted  healthcare also locks people into jobs to protect their families.  We would unleash a huge wave of new small businesses if people could try to start a business without fear of losing healthcare for their families.  Other countries have many, many more small businesses proportionally than we do because they have health care coverage in a single payer system.  It makes employees easier for a small business to hire too.

3. Re-balance our tax system to dis-incentiveize finance "products" and trading plus incentivize manufacturing.  A zero corporate tax rate for income derived from manufacturing in the USA would be a good start as would extending the Medicare and Social Security taxes (FICA) to ALL earnings on all individuals.  Make $10 million a year trading derivatives and  pay FICA on every penny.

[jcjohnpaint]

"2. Universal, single payer health care i.e. Medicare for everyone.  US companies are at a huge disadvantage trying to compete when they have to make healthcare part of their reimbursement package.  Having only employer assisted  healthcare also locks people into jobs to protect their families.  We would unleash a huge wave of new small businesses if people could try to start a business without fear of losing healthcare for their families.  Other countries have many, many more small businesses proportionally than we do because they have health care coverage in a single payer system.  It makes employees easier for a small business to hire to".

Yeah this alone would do soo much! 

[NotNow]

Thanks DW!  Though I disagree on several points I do respect your opinion.

[FayeforCure]

The President Can And Must Invoke 31 USC 3102 To Pay Our National Debts


There has been some talk that the President can act unilaterally to raise the nation debt limit based on Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned". The argument has been made that since Congress has ALREADY authorized BY LAW each obligation represented in the national debt, by appropriating the funds for various expenditures, any overall "debt limit" is artificially redundant. It would be like writing a bunch of checks and then refusing to deposit the funds in your account to cover them. While a constitutional challenge of the debt limit law may be a defensible argument in the spirit of the 14th Amendment it is not unequivocally compelling, as the 14th Amendment does not expressly authorize what proponents are asking the President to do.

With this context, it is astonishing that apparently nobody has bothered to read the text of Public Debt Law of 1941 itself, embodied in 31 USC 3101, which is what codifies a national debt limit. That law states that

"The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than [some arbitrary huge number] . . . "

Please take careful note of the words "EXCEPT guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of The Treasury". By undeniably clear law as passed by Congress, such obligations are NOT constrained by any so-called debt limit. Now all you have to do is run your finger down to the very next section 31 USC 3102 [Bonds] and you will read

"With the approval of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow on the credit of the United States Government amounts necessary for expenditures authorized by law . . . "

By this section Congress gives the President the EXPRESS, inherent and unilateral authority to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to incur obligations to cover all expenditures authorized by law, which is to say the sum of the appropriations bills Congress has already passed. And as we have just so clearly demonstrated such obligations are immune from any so-called debt ceiling limitation. Surely there is some White House attorney smart enough to figure this all out as we have.

The President must invoke this authority now, as he is fully empowered to do by 31 USC 3102. And then Congress needs to get serious about raising the revenues to pay its bills, and not just on the backs of poor people.

The one click form below will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject "The President Can And Must Invoke 31 USC 3102 To Pay Our National Debts." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1082.php

[Dashing Dan]

So just leave the debt ceiling in place, and let the president use his legislated authority to keep paying for the stuff that will keep our credit rating high?  I like that idea.  Then when the social security checks don't go out, the people will know that Congress isn't raising enough money.

[BridgeTroll]

Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

[FayeforCure]

Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

He never was a radical........always been a conformist so he doesn't mind making "statements" when it's safe to do so:

Senator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway

January 05, 2011 3:00 PM



On Sunday, President Obama’s top economic adviser, Council of Economic Advisers chair Austan Goolsbee, cautioned members of Congress not to “play chicken” by voting against raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling â€" despite the fact that as a senator in 2006, President Obama voted that way.

“I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee told me on ABC News’ THIS WEEK.  “If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

Goolsbee said a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause “a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008…This is not a game. The debt ceiling is not something to toy with.”

Four year ago, however, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted the exact way President Obama is now cautioning senators not to do.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

The debt limit was raised by a vote of 52-48.

Asked about that quote â€" and vote -- today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that it was important that “based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt.”

Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/gibbs-senator-obama-only-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-in-2006-because-he-knew-it-would-pass-an.html

Still, I despise such game playing and voters prefer authenticity you would think.

[BridgeTroll]

I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

[FayeforCure]

I see... well that certainly makes sense.  He... and you... then must agree with the people "making statements" now.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

[JeffreyS]

Why did Senator Obama not vote to raise the debt cieling when he had a chance to?  Does that make him a radical or a hypocrite?

I think it makes him exactly what he has said it makes him "wrong about that decision".